This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of             Sri. K. Jagan Mohan Rao, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. Kolli Satyanarayana, Advocate for Opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O  R  D  E  R

(Per Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant has joined in the hospital of opposite party on 04-09-2007 for taking IVF treatment.  As part of investigations, the opposite party conducted hysteroscopy by collecting Rs.1,600/- and stated that the complainant has no capacity to release proper eggs, if she obtain eggs from a donor, she would have a chance to become pregnant.  Accordingly, after conducting all the tests, the opposite party collected the eggs from the donor and sperms from the husband of complainant on 13-10-2007 and inserted in to the complainant’s womb on 15-10-2007 at about 11:00 PM.  On 16-10-2007 the complainant was discharged from the hospital of opposite party by advising to visit by 02-11-2007.  After conducting pregnancy test, the opposite party confirmed the pregnancy on 02-11-2007 and also advised to visit again on 16-11-2007.  Accordingly, the complainant approached the opposite party on 16-11-2007 and underwent Ultra Sound scanning, through which also the opposite party confirmed the pregnancy and advised to come after two weeks.  As per her advises, the complainant visited the hospital of opposite party on 02-12-2007.  The opposite party examined the complainant by taking Ultra Sound Scanning and stated that the condition of baby was normal and suggested to take same medicines as prescribed earlier and also suggested to attend the treatment again after two weeks.  Surprisingly, on 12-12-2007 the complainant was fallen down and got sudden giddiness at her mother’s house at Thallada.  As she was in serious condition, the complainant was shifted to the hospital of opposite party at 11:30 PM on the same day by 108 Ambulance.  Immediately after joining in her hospital, the opposite party examined the complainant and advised to go to any emergency hospital.  As per her advises, the complainant was shifted to Kinnera Super Specialty Hospital on the same day by the same Ambulance.  Due to non-availability of doctors at Kinnera Super Specialty Hospital and upon the advises of opposite party, the complainant was shifted from Kinnera Hospital to Mamata General Hospital, Khammam.  The doctors at Mamata Hospital found that the complainant has got ectopic pregnancy, one fetus was developed in the fallopian tube and another one in the uterus, due to rupture of fallopian tube, the complainant suffered from bleeding and due to which, the condition of complainant was became very serious.  The doctors at Mamata Hospital conducted surgery at early hours of     13-12-2007 after taking consent from the husband of complainant.  The complainant further submitted that during the course of treatment at Mamata General Hospital i.e. after one week of joining as inpatient, the doctors found that the fetus in the uterus was also dead.  The complainant was discharged on     02-01-2008.  The complainant had spent 1,70,000/- towards IVF treatment and Rs.25,000/- towards medical charges at Mamata Hospital and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation and other charges.  The complainant alleges non-rendering of proper medical services on the part of opposite party, when the complainant approached the opposite party on 12-12-2007 in a serious health condition due to which, she suffered physically and mentally.  Therefore, claimed Rs.10,000,00/- towards damages together with interest @12% per annum by filing the present complaint.    

3.      After receipt of notice, the opposite party filed counter by denying the averments of complaint and by submitting that it had given treatment to the complainant with all care and caution by providing professional skill, due to which only, the complainant had conceived and continued the pregnancy for such a long time.  The opposite party had given treatment basing on the test reports of Sneha Diagnostics.  The earlier scan report did not reveal that the pregnancy in fallopian tube and uterus, in fact, this type of pregnancy is called as Heterotrophic pregnancy, which is very rare.  The several factors increases rising ectopic pregnancy in cases of who obtained IVF treatment and can’t identified the gestational sack 100% by Ultra Sonogram.  Further the opposite party submitted that a live extra uterine foetus has been detected by EVS approximately 17 to 28% in cases of ectopic pregnancy, these type of risks are to be assessed basing on the problems allegedly faced by the complainant.  The opposite party also stated that after receipt of legal notice, it demanded the complainant through reply notice dt.08-09-2008 to give particulars of condition of the complainant at the time of joining in Mamata Hospital and wanted to supply operation particulars and discharge advise, given by the doctors at Mamata Hospital.  Despite furnishing, filed the present complaint for grabbing money from the opposite party.  Therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs as there was no negligence on the part of opposite party.    

4.      To prove her averments, the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and exhibits A-1 to A-4 were marked on her behalf.  Dr. Jyothi, Asst. Professor, Gynaecology Department in Mamata General Hospital was examined in chief as P.W.2.  No evidence was adduced and no documents were marked on behalf of opposite party.

5.      In view of above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

1. Whether there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of      

     opposite party in providing treatment to the complainant?

2. Whether there is any liability on the part of opposite party to pay compensation to the complainant?

3. To what relief?

Point Nos. 1 to 3 :-

The present complaint was filed by alleging non-providing of treatment and negligence on the part of opposite party in emergency situation, led to loss of pregnancy and also causes great loss to the complainant physically and mentally.    On the other hand the opposite party denied all the allegations as averred.  After having gone through the aforementioned contents and basing on the material on record, it is clear that the complainant approached the opposite party on 04-09-2007 for obtaining IVF treatment due to infertility of Ovum (eggs).  After conducting required tests to the complainant and the donor of eggs, the opposite party collected the eggs from the donor and sperms from the husband of complainant and inserted the same in to the complainant on 15-10-2007 at about 11:00 PM, on the very next day, the complainant was discharged from the hospital of opposite party with an advice to come for check up on 02-11-2007.  On 02-11-2007 the opposite party confirmed the pregnancy after conducting necessary tests.  Thereafter, the complainant visited the hospital of opposite party on 16-11-2007 and 02-12-2007 as per advises of opposite party.  On 02-12-2007, the opposite party examined the complainant through Ultra Sound scanning and stated that the conditions of foetus was normal and advised to continue the same medicines, prescribed earlier.  Unfortunately, on 12-12-2007 the complainant suffered from sudden giddiness and bleeding, immediately, she was shifted to the hospital of opposite party on 108 ambulance and admitted in her hospital in serious health condition. It is the allegation of the complainant, without providing any treatment, the opposite party advised to go to any emergency hospital.  On her advises, the complainant was shifted to Kinnera Super Specialty Hospital and thereafter she has admitted in Mamata General Hospital on the same day due to non-availability of doctors at Kinnera Hospital.  During the course of treatment at Mamata General Hospital, the complainant underwent salpingectomy towards treatment for Heterotrophic pregnancy as in-patient.  At the time of admission, the doctors diagnosed that she has Heterotrophic pregnancy, evidenced under Ex.A-1.  Ex.A-1 is the photocopy of discharge summary card, issued by Mamata General Hospital regarding the treatment provided to the complainant as in-patient from 13-12-2007 till 26-12-2007, wherein, the doctors mentioned the history of patient in brief as “a thirty year old primegravida ć 2MA was brought in shock ć H/o sudden loss of consciousness.  Patient was unconscious for a minute then gained conscious, she had an episode of vomiting and pain abdomen”.  In the second page of Ex.A-1, the doctors clearly mentioned that on admission time, Blood Pressure was not recordable,.... Exhibit A-1 clearly speaks the intensity of seriousness regarding the health condition of the complainant.  After conducting left salpingectomy and right fibroidectomy, the complainant was recovered and her condition was improved.  On the other hand the opposite party neither filed any medical record nor adduced her evidence to disprove the allegations of the complainant even she did not clarify why she did not provide the treatment in her hospital particularly in emergency situation, definitely arises a doubt on the part of opposite party. In our view, it is the duty of the opposite party to provide immediate treatment with reasonable care and caution to rescue the two lives, if there is any failure or fault / non rendering of medical services causes a great loss, no doubt it is against the professional ethics of a medical practitioner. 

To establish medical negligence on the part of opposite party, the complainant filed her chief examination affidavit and faced cross examination at length, through which, it was revealed that she underwent scanning for every week upto 3 months.  Further she also stated that the prescriptions and scanning reports were not filed on record because those were not given to her by the opposite party.  During the course of cross examination she clearly stated that on 12-12-2007 the opposite party refused to give treatment, so that, she went to Kinnera Hospital and thereafter Mamata General Hospital by 108 ambulance.  In our view, the facts itself speaks the negligence of opposite party, so, it is a clear case of ‘Res Ipsa loquitur’.  To know the actual causes and effects of Heterotrophic pregnancy, we have collected the medical literature from the website to come to conclusion for considetation.  According to some authors, Heterotrophic pregnancy is also sometimes called multiple-sited pregnancy combined ectopic pregnancy or coincidental pregnancy, there are two embryos one in ectopic pregnancy and the other is a normal intra uterine pregnancy.  Most Heterotrophic pregnancies are occur as a result of Assisted Reproductive Technology or ART, which usually means IVF (In-vitro fertilization).  The more common causes of Heterotrophic pregnancy are 1. History of pelvic inflammation 2. Surgical treatment for infertility 3. Forces generated during embrio transfer, which in the surgical placement of an embrio in the Uterus (part of the IVF procedure).  But there is no answer from the opposite party in respect of precautionary measures or any other steps required that she had taken to avoid any abnormal consequences in case of extra uterine pregnancy or to avoid the other complications of IVF procedure.  The most common symptoms of incidents of Heterotrophic pregnancy are pain, cramping and spotting very early in pregnancy, (these are the symptoms associated with ectopic pregnancy).  The frequent abdominal pain, especially one sided and severe nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy due to high level of pregnancy hormones.  The doctors easily identified the persisted rising pregnancy hormone levels (human chorionig gonado tropin levels) after an induced abortion or miscarriage.  In general the diagnosis is made during the first trimester (up to 12 weeks) by using endo vaginal 2 – dimensional ultra sound (2DUS) and through MRI pelvis.  In fact, the opposite party failed to clarify whether she had preferred / conducted           2DUS and MRI pelvis prior to rupture of ectopic pregnancy.  Even she did not place any documentary evidence in this regard except filing of counter. 

In view of above discussion and having perused the material on record it is a clear case of non-providing of treatment and medical negligence and as such the opposite party is liable to pay compensation for non rendering of proper treatment to the complainant.  Therefore, the point is answered accordingly, in favour of the complainant.

6.      In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party  to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the complainant towards compensation for loss of pregnancy and for causing mental agony within one month from the date of receipt of this order,  failing which, the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum  till its realization. Further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs.    

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the  3rd day of February, 2017.

                                                                   FAC President              Member      

                                                              District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

       -None-                                                                       -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

FAC President              Member

     District Consumer Forum, Khammam.